Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Vitality Life Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss S complained that Vitality Life Limited failed to adequately advise and remind her of a six-month deadline to verify her earnings for an optional financial guarantee on her income protection policy, which expired in February 2025. She submitted earnings evidence in April 2025, two months late, and Vitality rejected the late submission. Miss S argued that Vitality should have provided reminders given her ADHD disclosure and that the firm may have discriminated against neurodivergent customers. The ombudsman found that Vitality had clearly communicated the deadline through the sales call and written documentation, was not obligated to provide reminders for an optional feature, and had not acted unfairly in applying the policy terms to reject the late submission. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Vitality had clearly communicated the six-month deadline through both the sales call and written documentation. Since verifying earnings was optional under the policy terms, Vitality was not obligated to provide reminders. Although Miss S disclosed ADHD, there was no indication in the disclosure that she required deadline reminders or would be disadvantaged without them. The ombudsman noted that even if a reminder had been sent, there was no certainty Miss S would have complied with it. The late submission was properly rejected as the policy terms made no provision for submissions after the six-month period. The ombudsman acknowledged Miss S's struggles with ADHD but found Vitality had not acted unfairly in the circumstances.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website